The Roanoke Planning Commission spent nearly two hours on Monday hearing the pros and cons of adopting a plan to develop the city’s Evans Spring area that has been in the works for the last several years.
After concerns were voiced by nearly a score of people from across the Roanoke Valley, the commission voted to forward the plan for the approximately 150 acres of privately owned land to the Roanoke City Council for approval.
The vote was 5-2, but not until after members of the planning commission took time to explain their votes.
All five who voted yes noted that while much of the discussion of the plan had to do with rezoning, the current plan only revises the approach that the city would take if a developer asks to build on any of the approximately 100 of the 150 acres of property that meet conditions to be improved.
“This property will [eventually] be developed,” said planning commission member James Smith, who was the first to declare he was going to vote yes. “So how do we want to see it developed? Right now, anything can happen to the property. [Opponents of development] won’t be happy with that — none of us will.
“So, we’re trying to put some plans in place so we have some say.”
Chris Chittum, the city’s executive director of community development and placemaking, presented the city’s plan, which designates what kind of structures should be considered for each of six designated areas, as well as the infrastructure that should be built to support the development.
The plan’s major details include:
- A little more than 600 dwellings — in the form of apartments, single-family attached homes and single-family detached homes — could be built in various residential and mixed-use zones.
- A large retail/business site that could be the home of a big-box retailer.
- Amid the residential and mixed-used areas would be various types of open space.
- The remainder of the Interstate 581 interchange at Valley View Mall would need to be completed, a project that could cost up to $50 million. But the road coming off the exit and into the Evans Spring neighborhood would not have access to all of the residential areas.
- The approximately 50 acres that will not be developed would be cleaned up and protected with an environmentally sensitive approach.
The current zoning for the Evans Spring parcels, which are owned by a number of private interests, was the result of a 2013 plan approved by the council. A desire to revise that plan can be traced back to 2019, when the planning commission expressed several concerns about a development proposal put together by a North Carolina group that called for a variety of retail and dwelling plans but lacked details on how it would address environmental concerns and minimize the effect on current Northwest Roanoke residents.
Many of the 19 people who spoke in opposition to any further development around Evans Spring focused on how development could lead to environmental concerns, while others compared these plans to zoning changes during the city’s urban-renewal era of the 1950s and ’60s, when a Black neighborhood was leveled to make room for roads and other development.
Smith and commission member Scott Terry-Cabbler, who both said their families had been forced to relocate as a result of urban renewal in Roanoke, rejected the idea that what was being presented on Monday was similar to the changes made during that era.
“We’re not here to determine what to do with Evans Spring,” Smith said. “Somebody owns that property, and people have the right to own property, they have the right to sell property, they have the right to enjoy property and they have the right to invest in property.”
Terry-Cabbler, after saying he agreed with Smith’s remarks, added that when the city decided to tear down Victory Stadium and create River’s Edge Park, he was an adamant opponent of those plans. He said in retrospect, the change was needed and has been a great addition to the city’s park system.
“I’ve learned to be a lot more objective as opposed to emotional,” Terry-Cabbler said. “The Evans Spring neighborhood is my neighborhood. … I for one would be very opposed to anything that I feel would be detrimental to my neighborhood.”
Speakers representing the likes of Old Southwest, South Roanoke, the NAACP, the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy and the Roanoke Sierra Club also spoke, giving various opinions of how the land should be used.
Most of the Save Evans Spring speakers have been regular contributors at both city council and planning commission meetings in the past several months. The general message from this group is that development should be prohibited on any of the land and the city should instead make it a priority to acquire the land and leave it as a permanent green space.
“Instead of viewing the city’s last and largest contiguous parcel of land that can be developed into a commercial and high-density residential properties, what if city officials view Evans Spring as the last and continuous urban forest in the city that can be preserved for environmental and human health?” said Roanoke resident Virginia Sweet, one of the Save Evans Spring members who have shared this message in the past. “Evans Spring could be our city’s outdoor crown jewel.”
Before calling for the vote, new commission chair Frank Martin said he was going to support the plan but expects that any updated plans will have to go through similar scrutiny.
“I’m in favor of this because I believe this plan is infinitely superior to what currently is in place there to protect it,” Martin said. “This is an additional layer of protection [for the residents around Evans Spring]. Obviously, we have many other questions to answer. We’re a long way away from bulldozers coming in and knocking down trees.”
The two no votes came from Pamela Smith and Sarah Glenn. Pamela Smith spoke briefly in favor of giving the city more say in how the land was developed but added that she empathized with the community reaction to the plan. Glenn indicated that while she saw the proposed plan as an improvement to what was in place, she still disagreed with key portions of the document.
“One is the exact location and mix of commercial and residential property. I’m not convinced that this plan has it exactly right,” Glenn said. “The highly prescriptive nature of this plan is a little concerning. If I’m going to vote yes on this, I need to know if it’s changeable. I think that we’ve been told that this is not a final product. This is just an idea. And also, [I’m concerned] about the nebulous aspects of the cost.”
Now that the planning commission has moved the plan forward, the city council can vote to approve the proposal as soon as its next meeting on Feb. 20.
